Guest Posted August 19, 2013 Posted August 19, 2013 Link didn't work for me either off a desk top. It says: Did you mean: De Novo
indiefoot Posted August 19, 2013 Posted August 19, 2013 This is the journal site. http://www.advancedsciencefoundation.org/
georgerm Posted August 21, 2013 Posted August 21, 2013 Abstract and conclusions from my article submitted to De Nova over 2 months ago with no acceptance yet: ABSTRACT Three nuclear DNA samples claimed to be of an unknown North American hominin (Sasquatch/Bigfoot) were sequenced recently, and interest in this cryptid has been renewed. These sequences are reinterpreted through extensive database searches with different results, and the conclusions of the original study are found to be in error. The three samples are seen to be from a black bear (Ursus americanus), a human (Homo sapiens), and a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), respectively. ******************* Could it be that BF is so close to a human, that the DNA matches in many sequences?
MIB Posted August 21, 2013 Moderator Posted August 21, 2013 ^^^^^ Nobody should be shocked if that is exactly correct. Historical DNA testing based on mtDNA for species ID has quite frequently come back as human if there was anything to find at all. The assumption at the time was that those results pointed to contamination so the samples were destroyed / disregarded. I think they were mostly right all along, we just weren't willing to interpret them correctly. **... and I conclude that without considering Dr Ketchum's study at all.** MIB
georgerm Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 When testing for BF DNA only a small fraction of the genome is determined is my percepton. "Because the sequence data that is produced can be quite large (for example, there are approximately six billion base pairs in each human diploid genome), genomic data is stored electronically and requires a large amount of computing power and storage capacity. Full genome sequencing would have been nearly impossible before the advent of the.....................computers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_genome_sequencing
Guest Posted August 27, 2013 Posted August 27, 2013 I wasn't present to document what I would do, so that's one reason I didn't walk next to them. Secondly, I think I've already stated the trackway didn't appear to me to be exceptionally long strided. Third, comparitive human data can be obtained independently of the place and time where the tracks were obtained. Fourth, moisture content of the soil is constantly changing on a river bank like that one, and will affect depth of the tracks. The President wasn't taking our calls, so we didn't talk to him about this either. Could the tracks have been documented to no end? Yep, but wouldn't change what they are...(human tracks). De Nova(sp) isn't a journal, so I expect harsh treatment. Sorry for the wrong name: it's "DeNovo" NOT "De Nova." I should have caught this after reading the original article so many time online.
southernyahoo Posted August 27, 2013 Posted August 27, 2013 Abstract and conclusions from my article submitted to De Nova over 2 months ago with no acceptance yet: ABSTRACT Three nuclear DNA samples claimed to be of an unknown North American hominin (Sasquatch/Bigfoot) were sequenced recently, and interest in this cryptid has been renewed. These sequences are reinterpreted through extensive database searches with different results, and the conclusions of the original study are found to be in error. The three samples are seen to be from a black bear (Ursus americanus), a human (Homo sapiens), and a domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), respectively. ******************* CONCLUSIONS Sample 26 is from a bear, most likely a black bear, Ursus americanus. This was also the previous conclusion of an independent investigation(2) of a duplicate sample using human and black bear primers. Searches limited to human, other primates, the Canis genus, and all other species, produced poor matches or no matches at all. It is possible, but not likely, that the sample originates from a previously unknown or unreported bear species or black bear hybrid. Sample 31 is genus Homo, most likely Homo sapiens. Matches to other primates, to Canis, and to all other species were extremely poor, or there was no match at all. The possibility that it could be a previously unknown, very closely related species or subspecies of the Homo genus could not be excluded, but is unlikely because the matches to human were so perfect. There is no mosaic of human and primate-like sequences as claimed in the Ketchum conclusion (2). Sample 140 is from a domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or a similar Canis species. Hits over the 15 best sequence ranges for each of human and Canis (18 in all, 12 coincided) favored Canis over human, other primates, and all other species by a wide margin in each case, except two (below the 15 best Canis hits) in which there were no Canis matches. Over each of the sequence ranges of the top 14 Canis hits, the “all other†categories also bested both human and other primates but were not close to the Canis matches, further supporting the conclusion that the sample is not human or even primate. A NCBI database search for Neanderthal and Denisovan nuclear DNA sequences produced none of the latter and only five very short (<90 bp) “environmental†sequences of the former in the NCBI databases. This low and non-existent database coverage is certainly not enough to support the Ketchum conclusion (1) (database principle 1). In summary, none of the three Ketchum conclusions are supported by our nuclear DNA sequence interpretations of Samples 26, 31, and 140, which are from a black bear, a human, and a dog, respectively. No new species of primate could be proven to exist based on this data, and no new phylogeny is suggested. hvhart, since we wouldn't expect each member of any species to match 100%, is there a version of your findings that gives the degree of match or non-match as a percentage? Is there any literature that you have consulted that would establish a threshold for making positive identifications relating to chromosome eleven?
Guest Loomy Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 So my take is that no matter what DNA says it will either not be conclusive,it will read human so skeptics will say it was contaminated.She already has 2 strikes against her in the fact she is charging money to read the paper.(did I hear that right?I thought I had read that somewhere)And she has no respect in the scientific community!So she is either a pioneer or a snake oil salesperson. I hope she is for real and not trying to make $ on us "suckers"! We all know that dirtbag Rick Dyer did not kill anything except his ability to have anyone belive him ever. At this point, I just want to have my own encounter so I can look in the mirror and know I'm not fooling myself with my beliefs.The gov. knows they are real .The Smithsonian has purchased many giant skeletons that have been dug up.The Native Americans know what's up.Its just that science is keeping its eyes shut.All but Melba and Meldrom. Has anyone been following the Falcon Project? I talked to William Barnes for about an hour on the phone,he strongly believes the ballon in the sky will find them.That would be great.Time will tell Hey squatchy mcsquatch,that pic u have of the dead bigfoot, where is that from? I have seen that before but don't know the story behind it,can u fill me in a bit? So my take is that no matter what DNA says it will either not be conclusive,it will read human so skeptics will say it was contaminated.She already has 2 strikes against her in the fact she is charging money to read the paper.(did I hear that right?I thought I had read that somewhere)And she has no respect in the scientific community!So she is either a pioneer or a snake oil salesperson. I hope she is for real and not trying to make $ on us "suckers"! We all know that dirtbag Rick Dyer did not kill anything except his ability to have anyone belive him ever. At this point, I just want to have my own encounter so I can look in the mirror and know I'm not fooling myself with my beliefs.The gov. knows they are real .The Smithsonian has purchased many giant skeletons that have been dug up.The Native Americans know what's up.Its just that science is keeping its eyes shut.All but Melba and Meldrom. Has anyone been following the Falcon Project? I talked to William Barnes for about an hour on the phone,he strongly believes the ballon in the sky will find them.That would be great.Time will tell Hey squatchy mcsquatch,that pic u have of the dead bigfoot, where is that from? I have seen that before but don't know the story behind it,can u fill me in a bit?
Guest Darrell Posted September 6, 2013 Posted September 6, 2013 ^I think the issue is dead. No scientist with any character wants anything to do with this mess. Ketchum got what hamburger she could from her cash cow.
Guest DWA Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 The best thing that will come from killing this Ketchum noise is another nail in the coffin of "they're human." We need to stop insulting the animal kingdom while we are destroying it wholesale. Not to mention coming up with another excuse to destroy it. All sasquatch will wind up being, if we call them people, is another group of people we can kill because they are different.
southernyahoo Posted September 7, 2013 Posted September 7, 2013 You can't kill the truth, It will haunt those with contempt of it forever. Being a different people would be their "best" protection I can think of.
Guest DWA Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 ...and that's what I mean about the people who say this is human. The evidence? Can't kill that, and it says: nope.
ShadowBorn Posted September 8, 2013 Moderator Posted September 8, 2013 ...and that's what I mean about the people who say this is human. The evidence? Can't kill that, and it says: nope.DWAWho says that they are full human. I really do not believe that they are full human. Yet there is some aspect of them that makes think otherwise. Some thing about them is odd and I am sure it will be seen in the DNA. What I do not take is the trying to pass them off as in gorilla type of mammal .
Guest DWA Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 I'm not reading "Homo sapiens" from the evidence. And shoot, there is evidence that there's an unidentified hominoid somewhere in our line too. The "human" thing is just tossed around too freely. I'd like the taxonomists to resolve that one.
southernyahoo Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 ...and that's what I mean about the people who say this is human. The evidence? Can't kill that, and it says: nope. What if it just says different, but still human? Your avitar was in part composed from facial details derived from photo's taken no more than a 1/2 mile from where my sample was collected and used in Ketchums' study. If you acknowledge that human DNA is pointing to other hominins existing in the past, then what are the odds another hominin existing today would have human DNA? Supposing they look like this photo below, I'd say the odds are very good.
Recommended Posts